This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

The acronym ISO apparently stands for the International Organization for Standardization. Why is the word order different in the acronym? What does 9000 stand for? Michael-Zero (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My name is James Lamprecht, I wrote the first book on ISO 9000 published in the US with Marcel Dekker back in 1992. I have written several books on ISO 9000 and yet the article does not cite me; not really a problem but that is the nature of so-called Internet "research" which tends to be superficial. At any rate, I would say that the article (overview of ISO 9000), is actually pretty good. As far as what ISO means, it is not related to the Internal Organization based in Geneva. The word ISO was meant to mean equal as in isobar or isometric for example; I realize that can be confusing. As for the number 9000, I believe it has no particular significance except that, back in 1986, the number was the next number available to the International Organization, so they simply used it. Many of the objections listed in the article (and many more), as well as the history of standards are covered in my book: Quality and Power in the Supply Chain: What Industry Does for the Sake of Quality. Butterworts-Heinemann, 2000. Jim Lamprecht, retired ISO 9000 consultant and auditor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.148.12.89 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

> and the U.K's "Def Stan 05-21 and 05-24. Large organizations which supplied government procurement agencies often had to comply with a variety of quality assurance requirements for each contract awarded which led the defence industry to adopt mutual recognition of NATO AQAP, MIL-Q and Def Stan standards. Eventually, ISO 9000 was adopted as a suitable option, instead of forcing contractors to adopt multiple - and often similar - requirements.

The double-quotes are missing from the end, so it's unclear where the citation ends. For the same reason, I can't fix it. In addition, both this and the previous citation don't cite their sources. 67.200.201.137 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

When searching google for the first sentence, all I find are copies of this article. If we can't find a source for the claims we may need to simply remove them. —PaleoNeonate – 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)